Church Volunteer Security Groups

[mojo84]

Super. It will only allow us to do what churches already do but allow us to organize and be better prepared. It will make things much safer.

[gugisman]

My communication this morning to Judd Quarles, Chief of Staff, Office of Rep. Matt Schaefer- House District 6, Capitol Office: E2.510, 512-463-0584:
_______________________________________

Good morning,

I see HB 1561 is scheduled for public comment on Tues. April 21. Would you please confirm that it will take place? I have some other obligations that day that I will cancel if the hearing takes place.

In addition to the passage of HB 1561 that addresses concealed handgun licensecees engaging in/on church security teams...

I would like to propose an amendment to modify TX OC 1702.322 (non-applicability chapter) to include (new) sections 5 - 9:

"(5) an honorably retired peace officer, qualified retired law enforcement officer, federal criminal investigator, or former reserve law enforcement officer who holds a certificate of proficiency issued under Section 1701.357, Occupations Code, and is carrying a photo identification that is issued by a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, as applicable, and that verifies that the officer is:
(A) an honorably retired peace officer;
(B) a qualified retired law enforcement officer;
(C) a federal criminal investigator; or
(D) a former reserve law enforcement officer who has served in that capacity not less than a total of 15 years with one or more state or local law enforcement agencies;
(6) a district attorney, criminal district attorney, county attorney, or municipal attorney who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
(7) an assistant district attorney, assistant criminal district attorney, or assistant county attorney who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
(8) a bailiff designated by an active judicial officer as defined by Section 411.201, Government Code, who is:
(A) licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Chapter 411, Government Code; and
(B) engaged in escorting the judicial officer; or
(9) a juvenile probation officer who is authorized to carry a firearm under Section 142.006, Human Resources Code."

The above is a direct copy of PC sec 46.15 that exempts these individuals from PC Sections 46.02 "unlawful carrying of weapons" and 46.03 "places weapons prohibited".

[Pease note that PC 46.15 also includes sections (b)(4-6), that specifically address security officers, and only exempts them from PC 46.02 "unlawful carrying of weapons ".

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, OC 1702.322 can only exempt others from its regulatory authority regarding PC 46.02, and cannot prohibit those exempted from PC 46.03 "places weapons prohibited" under PC 46.15.]

I think that there was an legislative oversight when drafting & approving OC 1702 & 1702.322.

Adding sections 5-9 under OC 1702.322 will clear up that oversight.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Eric Inman
Ponder, TX

[gugisman]

The hearing went well... considering 4-5 security lobbyists fought hard to keep things status quo.

Three other guys testified in favor of the bill, but I neglected to get their names. One was retired TX State Trooper.

There was very little time for testimony. Here is what I highlighted:

-Security industry is turf protecting, which has resulted in governmental overreach into churches;
-Security industry is meddling into private affairs of religious organizations, bordering on affecting their freedom to (safely) worship;
-Many/most (potential) volunteers are retired LEO's from State, Local and Federal agencies;
-These potential volunteers have thousands of hours of training and 20+ years of real life LE experience... A security officer's certification requires about 50 hours of training;
-Retired LEO's are 'exempted' from TXPC 46.02/03 in 46.15; Security officers are for 46.02 but only a defense of prosecution for 46.03;

The bill may be tweaked (hopefully) to make it palletable to the democrats on the committee, which may lead to its passage out if committee...

This is a giidt time to call Matt Schaeffer's office, the sponsor of the bill, to offer support. It's definitely a good time to call or email the Homeland Security committee to encourage them to vote in favor of passing the bill.

E. Inman, Ponder, TX

[joelamosobadiah]

The hearing went well... considering 4-5 security lobbyists fought hard to keep things status quo.

Three other guys testified in favor of the bill, but I neglected to get their names. One was retired TX State Trooper.

There was very little time for testimony. Here is what I highlighted:

-Security industry is turf protecting, which has resulted in governmental overreach into churches;
-Security industry is meddling into private affairs of religious organizations, bordering on affecting their freedom to (safely) worship;
-Many/most (potential) volunteers are retired LEO's from State, Local and Federal agencies;
-These potential volunteers have thousands of hours of training and 20+ years of real life LE experience... A security officer's certification requires about 50 hours of training;
-Retired LEO's are 'exempted' from TXPC 46.02/03 in 46.15; Security officers are for 46.02 but only a defense of prosecution for 46.03;

The bill may be tweaked (hopefully) to make it palletable to the democrats on the committee, which may lead to its passage out if committee...

This is a giidt time to call Matt Schaeffer's office, the sponsor of the bill, to offer support. It's definitely a good time to call or email the Homeland Security committee to encourage them to vote in favor of passing the bill.

E. Inman, Ponder, TX

I did not catch the entire testimony, but what are the chances it gets substituted to only allow retired LEOs or military, etc.? I hope this isn't the case, but it would be better than nothing for a starting point.

[gugisman]

There was no specific discussion in that regard. I do agree that that would be a decent outcome.

[jmra]

Sounded to me like the committee might be more receptive if the bill were limited to just churches as opposed to all non-profits. IMHO passing a bill that only applies to retired LEO is pretty much pointless for most small to medium sized churches. The chairman urged several times for the industry to work with the bill author to put something together that would help churches. Hopefully that happens.

[gugisman]

Yeah... so true. Just stay out of church affairs in this matter.

[gugisman]

Please contact Todd Hunter to schedule HB 1561 for a full floor vote. It has been moved out of committee, as substituted. My email to Rep. Hunter:

Todd...

I am writing to encourage you to not overlook HB 1561, as amended/substituted, that lifts the ridiculous restriction on churches to provide their own security teams.

Various bills that addressed this governmental overreach into churches never made it to the floor in previous sessions. This one merits your prayerful consideration and action.

I urge you to get this one paragraph bill to the floor, where I fully expect it will be swiftly, and bi-partisanly, passed.

Sincerely,

Eric Inman
Ponder, TX

(I have a copy of the substituted bill but don't know how to attach it. It took out any reference to other non- profits and schools.)

[jmra]

Please contact Todd Hunter to schedule HB 1561 for a full floor vote. It has been moved out of committee, as substituted. My email to Rep. Hunter:

Todd...

I am writing to encourage you to not overlook HB 1561, as amended/substituted, that lifts the ridiculous restriction on churches to provide their own security teams.

Various bills that addressed this governmental overreach into churches never made it to the floor in previous sessions. This one merits your prayerful consideration and action.

I urge you to get this one paragraph bill to the floor, where I fully expect it will be swiftly, and bi-partisanly, passed.

Sincerely,

Eric Inman
Ponder, TX

(I have a copy of the substituted bill but don't know how to attach it. It took out any reference to other non- profits and schools.)

I got the feeling that if it was limited to churches it would have a much better reception - hope it moves along quickly.

[Dad24GreatKids]

I don't see that this has made any progress in the last two weeks. Looks like it was sent to the calendar committee on May 11. Is it dying there?

[gugisman]

Not enough interest apparently...

[flechero]

So 2+ years later and we are still waiting for this to pass? (or be voted on?) Geez,

[Deltaboy]

WELL I just told the Security team leader I carry but I won't be on your team until the law changes.

[gugisman]

If 30-40 people would have shown up to testify, and if a couple hundred would have made calls and sent emails... Then the godless democrats on the committee wouldn't have been so cocky and self righteous... Yes, I'm letting my true feelings show... Deal with it!

At least for now, perhaps someone could work on drafting an amendment to TX OC 1702.322 Non-Applicability to include a new section (just as in TX PC 46.15 (a)(5)) to read: "an honorably retired peace officer or federal criminal investigator who holds a certificate of proficiency issued under section 1701.357, occupations code, and is carrying a photo identification that: (A) verifies that the officer honorably retired after not less than 15 years of service as a commissioned officer; and (B) is issued by a state or local law enforcement agency;

This would immediately fix the problem for retired LEO's who wish to serve on church security teams, who are I imagine, the majority of the potential volunteer pool.

It's ridiculous that the security industry has subverted the intent of TX PC 46.15, by the enactment of regulation under TX OC 1702, that prohibits groups from participating on church security teams, (except theirs of course), which was otherwise not prohibited under 46.15.

Additionally, as you read through TX PC 46.15, the legislature was not nearly as lenient with security officers as with retired LEO's. This really smacks of 'payback' by the security groups, doesn't it?

[chasfm11]

If 30-40 people would have shown up to testify, and if a couple hundred would have made calls and sent emails... Then the godless democrats on the committee wouldn't have been so cocky and self righteous... Yes, I'm letting my true feelings show... Deal with it!

At least for now, perhaps someone could work on drafting an amendment to TX OC 1702.322 Non-Applicability to include a new section (just as in TX PC 46.15 (a)(5)) to read: "an honorably retired peace officer or federal criminal investigator who holds a certificate of proficiency issued under section 1701.357, occupations code, and is carrying a photo identification that: (A) verifies that the officer honorably retired after not less than 15 years of service as a commissioned officer; and (B) is issued by a state or local law enforcement agency;

This would immediately fix the problem for retired LEO's who wish to serve on church security teams, who are I imagine, the majority of the potential volunteer pool.

It's ridiculous that the security industry has subverted the intent of TX PC 46.15, by the enactment of regulation under TX OC 1702, that prohibits groups from participating on church security teams, (except theirs of course), which was otherwise not prohibited under 46.15.

Additionally, as you read through TX PC 46.15, the legislature was not nearly as lenient with security officers as with retired LEO's. This really smacks of 'payback' by the security groups, doesn't it?

While I understand and echo your frustration over this problem, I believe that the political capitol was not available in the last session to be able to thwart the security industry influence. I agree that a grass roots showing can have an impact but, at the end of the day, it is as much about the behind the scenes work that Charles, Alice and others do that gets legislation passed. I'm even more frustrated that the expansion of places that CHLs can carry also was defeated (by not addressing it in chamber votes) in the last session. I've joined CHLs United in order to help create the grass roots support needed to help Charles achieve a better outcome in 2017.

Perhaps with OC out of the way, there will be more political capital in 2017 for the church security measure. My fear is that "corrections" will be needed because of what happens starting on 1/1/16 and the church security matter will once again take a back seat. Keep in mind that the Moms Demand Action and other groups are also lobbying and sometimes success is stopping the madness that they try to generate. Hopefully, your idea about changes to allow retired police officers to fill the gap can at least get passed. While I hate to see piece meal solutions, I recognize that fixes for many of the problems take time and must be done in steps, not all at once.